(My apology, I'm new to these codecs stuff. T_T and I'm not quite good in English, please forgive me.)

WMA9(normal version, not 'WMA9Pro') at 64kbps = CD quality? Or can anyone tell me if it's better than MP3 at 128 kbps or not(assuming I'm using Musicmatch Jukebox for encoding, not LAME).

I'm deciding what format to be used at 64kbps. For sound quality, mp3 at 128 kbps(encoded by Musicmatch Jukebox or some other normal encoder) is good enough for me. Please help me decide.
Thank you very much. ^__^

Welcome to the forum.

Can i ask you a question: Have you ever listened to the orginal CD and imediately to your mp3
encoded using Musicmatch @ 128? Try it and write down your feelings...

Give Ogg Vorbis a try.
http://rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org/ogg.html

Download and test it.

I think it's much better than wma9 at 64kbps.

If 128kbps mp3 is good enough for you, then 128kbps WMA9 should be equally as good. 64kbps will not be CD quality (that's just marketing speak), but as said before, try it and see. WMA9 Professional is only for multichannel or 24-bit formats and so wouldn't apply to CD encoding. The best performance at low bitrates (IMHO) is given by Ogg Vorbis, so you might want to try that format as well.

Jim

wma @ 64 sounds very metallic on many tunes, but does ok for classical stuff. ogg has its own set of problems @ 64. I'd use a higher bitrate, and stay away from wma.

MP3 @ 128 kbps is NOT CD Quality.
WMA @ 64 kbps is NOT CD Quality (and no, I don't think it's better than 128 kbps MP3, although I have no hard data to backup that claim).

Anyway, if you're looking for a format for 64 kbps, I recommend you use Ogg Vorbis. If, for any reasons, you MUST choose between MP3 and WMA, obviously WMA will sound better than MP3 at 64 kbps (but WMA is evil).

Mp3 vs wma9 comparison for low bitrates:
http://www.mp3-tech.org/tests/wma9/

Results of 64 kbit/s Group Listening Test.

Whoa!! What a quick response!! Thank you all for the replies ^___^
I'll give Ogg a try now. Actually, I'm looking for a format that perform best at 64kbps because my Pocket PC can hold up to 128 MB only. (SD card) And I've a lot of favorite tracks so I can't put them all in 128 kbps. T_T

Thanks again !

WMA9Pro also supports stereo. The 24bits don't really matter, and when it's decoded, it plays at the bitdepth the soundcard supports or the bitdepth requested by the application that wants to decode it.

Low bitrates (below 128kbit) are only reachable by using the VBR modes at Q50 and below, with decent sound quality (yes, better than normal WMA9 at same bitrate). Q25 averages between 60-75kbit depending on what type of music.

--edit--
If it's for a pocket PC, forget about WMA9Pro, I don't think it'll support it, not definitively sure though.

What about downsampling to mono?

This is quite a good idea.

Mono Ogg at 64kbps is quite pleasant.
I suspect that resampling down to 32khz instead would save just as many bits and still sound fine though.


To my ears, WMA at 64kbps sounds like the song is being played by a transistor radio sitting inside a big tin can.
Stereo Ogg at 64kbps has an annoying (to me) variable lowpass that changes second by second (or something that results in a similar sound).

Try WMA9 and Vorbis, see which one sounds best to you.. But, if you want my opinion, WMA9 totally pwnz Vorbis at low bitrates.

Ok, I've tried WMA9,Ogg at 64,128kbps. Ogg sounds better at 128kbps but WMA sounds better at 64kbps. This judge solely from my feeling after listening so please don't quote me on it. T_T

Looks like I'll have to go WMA for now.

"Off topic"
Anyone have an idea on how far SD Card(for Pocket PC) can go? Is it possible to be able to hold up to 1GB anytime soon? It may not be good to stick with 64 kbps forever. T_T

Thank you!

Don't forget to try the WMA variable bitrate modes while you're at it, usually they can give you as good or better quality for fewer bits. I've found that the WMA lower-quality VBR modes make the bass a little boomy but maybe it will sound good that way over your headphones. You can also try making some MP3 files with RealOne if you have it, I've been ripping some CDs lately using its "average 128 kb/s" VBR mode and they sound pretty decent to my non-audiophile ear. It has settings to average 112 kb/s or 96 kb/s, you could try one of those too.

RealNetworks had bought out Xing technologies in 1999 I think. So the MP3 encoder in RealOne could be another reincarnation of Xing

I guess it makes sense that RealOne is using Xing. So what? I know it had a bad reputation over on r3mix, but that was a few years ago and it's probably been improved since then. Maybe it loses out to LAME as far as transparency goes, but down around 128 kb/s it sounds okay to me. I'm sure many here could A/B it 100% of the time but for casual listening in the office or on my iPod through the car stereo I don't mind it at all.

The good thing about RealOne is that it rips+encodes at 8x on my machine, so it's very quick to rip some CDs and see how you like it.

RealOne? Well, if you do care about ripping/encoding speed, go on...

But if you want some quality at lower bitrates mp3, why not use --alt-preset ###? It's the same average ### bitrate VBR with better quality.

I have tried myself a few encodes at 64kbps, and wma9 occupies last place - as for my ears of cource
mp3Pro was the best (only CBR, MS+NS, encoded by CoolEditPro 2.1)
aac (from last nero) with LTP and PNS gives the best sound at one track.
ogg was acceptable, but his hard high frequencies was not pleasant to me at all.
wma9 sucks at all cases, and both cbr and 2-pass vbr.

That was only my ears, so don't throw rotten tomatoes

BTW, lowest --alt-preset ### is --alt-preset 80
BTW-2, --alt-preset ### are not VBR, but ABR.

Well, I wanted to mean "average ### bitrate VBR" = ABR, sorry it was not clear